This is a meta-comment, not especially directed at this mail, just triggered by it: can we try to be careful about the usage of the term 'object', 'formal objections', etc, at this stage of the discussion? This term has a very strong meaning in the W3C process, a recorded formal objection is such that, if it is maintained in spite of the resolutions of a working group, escalates up to the Director for final arbitration, etc. Its usage has already created unnecessary confusion (and adverse reactions) on the discussions before and we should try to avoid making the current deliberations even more difficult...
Thanks
Ivan
On Jun 8, 2012, at 01:51 , Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Hi Sandro,
>
>>> I've heard you say two mutually incompatible things:
>>>
>>> 1. A Turtle file published at <i> containing graph G is an RDF dataset with only named graph <i,G>
>>>
>>> 2. A Turtle file published at <i> containing graph G is an RDF dataset with only a default graph
>>>
>>> Which one is it? It can't be both.
>>
>> If I said (1), it was a mistake.
>>
>> I would rephrase (1) as a conditional:
>>
>> A. If it is true that a turtle file serializing G is what is
>> published at <i>,
>> B. Then the dataset consisting of the named graph <i,G> is true.
>
> -1.
>
> We can postulate the existence of a *specific* dataset, let's call it the â€œweb datasetâ€